Jesus' Mission....

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah man, no worries. I'd suggest, btw, that your comments arent a possible worlds interpretation...but a multiple worlds interpretation.

It would be more accurate, but no more defensible..as..in the multiple worlds god is omniscient in the same way that I am..knowing beforehand, only, that you can choose pretty much anything....and privileging one of many multiple worlds with actualization for.....no particular reason. The cosmic texas sharpshooter.

Still not knowledge, just an ad hoc circling of one out of many worlds, possible or otherwise.

[GrandizerII]

It would be more accurate, but no more defensible..as..in the multiple worlds god is omniscient in the same way that I am..knowing beforehand, only, that you can choose pretty much anything....and privileging one of many multiple worlds with actualization for.....no particular reason.  The cosmic texas sharpshooter.

Still not knowledge, just an ad hoc circling of one out of many worlds, possible or otherwise.

Not sure how that's not knowledge? God made the selection as to which world to actualize, so it would know what world it actualized. Yes, the selection of which world to actualize is predetermined, but the possibility of having chosen another option instead of the one that was made in the actual world means that free will (as defined earlier) can operate with God's predetermining which world to actualize.

This one is a general remark and not specifically targeted at you: In the actual world, only one choice is inevitably made, but it doesn't mean this choice was necessary. To suggest that would be to commit the modal scope fallacy. It only means that this choice was made in this actual world instead of another choice.

As for your earlier posts, I get the gist of them but I don't even feel like debating the core of possible worlds semantics. In addition, whether sheer possibility of knowledge must necessitate fatalism doesn't really attack the argument I'm making specifically. We could have fatalism and yet also free will (as defined earlier).

[Mister Agenda]

....for the causal layman, those lacking understanding, or even interest:

The curse of death for sin: Gen 2:17 "…but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” KJV


The only way to eradicate the curse: is for a man to live free from sin, and suffer death. Because; death was only meant for sinners!

How does a man live [free of sin]? Man cannot. He can only repeat it. God, in the person of Jesus can, and does live sin free. And in the process; Teaches us “The Way,
the Truth, and the Life.” He also atones for our sins, and reconciles Himself to man, for putting sin in front of us to begin with. Much like Him saying, "I am sharing
in your humanity, and death so I might save all from eternal damnation." And Jesus dies at OUR sentencing and hands, sinless. The curse is then broken!

Death, then becomes a door instead of a destination! And in heeding His teachings, we avoid the “Second Death” (death of the soul).

And all this..... without disrupting Free Will. AMAZING!

In even simpler terms? God is not asking us to do something He wouldn’t do Himself. And out of pure love for ALL of us! Amen

Hey, Ronedee, haven't seen you around in a while, good to see you participating. I'm a little surprised that after having been with us so long, you would just post a preachy bit of fluff and fail to participate further in a thread you started. How about you elaborate?

[The Grand Nudger]

@Grandizer

It's not knowledge because all possible choices are made in all possible worlds, with god arbitrarily selecting one of those multiple worlds for "actualization". It didn't know which one you would choose beyond knowing that you would choose all options. It merely selected one of all of the options you "chose". The shots were fired, the holes were in the barn, and it drew a circle around them. Again, though, irrelevant, as knowing that you would choose everything in a many worlds interpretation still includes the fatalist requirement that you would choose everything in many worlds interpretation. You couldn't -not- choose everything, and your "choice", known from a past state, could have no other outcome. The specific world privileged, itself and additionally, being outside of your influence or control. You "chose" all the worlds, and you didn't choose the actualized one.

I agree with you that in the actual world only one choice was made, and that this choice being made does not make it necessary, but here again you assume your intended conclusion and ignore the fatalist requirement in the possibility of foreknowledge in -whatever- choice was made.

OFC my sideline doesn't attack your argument, your defense of the compatibility between the two concepts is irrelevant to the incompatibility between them, as I continue to stress with every reply. Free will is the direct and explicit rejection of fatalism, and fatalism is the direct and explicit rejection of free will. You can only have both if you redefine free will, fatalism, or both. In context of knowledge, knowing all that can be known must exclude your future choices, or in context of mans free will..it must exclude those things which can be known before the fact.

Again, we don't even have to use a god. We can use ourselves, or the sheer (and mere) p[ossibility of knowing. We make excellent guesses about human behavior, having alot of knowledge about people..being people..and studying ourselves. Thing is, there's always the possibility that a person will confound expectations, no matter how well informed they are. This is the essence of free will. The ability to choose more than one option, which we cannot do and are not doing, if the outcome "chosen" can be known, rather than guessed at, even with a high degree of success. Is the future knowable, or guessable? Bringing god back into the fold, is he a super-knower, or a super-guesser...if it's the latter, and we insist on using the term that refers to knowledge rather than guessing, we'll have redefined another term.

The two concepts are completely and necessarily un-salvageable in relation to each other. Requiring us to talk (and argue) about some other x (or multiple x's) called by the same name. Subtle but effective equivocation. If all-knowledge does not contain future knowledge, then lets call it most knowledge, and if free will doesn't contain the freedom to confound expectation..lets call it human will. We can cut out the possible and actual worlds, and gods, and even the possession of such knowledge.

In a world where most knowledge can be had, and where human will is constrained, there is no necessary dilemma between most knowledge and human will. Notice that there's nothing to object to here, and compare that to any argument where the assertion of a choice is used to establish that we have a choice, when the item in question is the possibility of choice? Or where some "knower" draws a circle around a select handful of all choices made and calls this foreknowledge?

[ronedee]

....for the causal layman, those lacking understanding, or even interest:

The curse of death for sin: Gen 2:17 "…but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” KJV


The only way to eradicate the curse: is for a man to live free from sin, and suffer death. Because; death was only meant for sinners!

How does a man live [free of sin]? Man cannot. He can only repeat it. God, in the person of Jesus can, and does live sin free. And in the process; Teaches us “The Way,
the Truth, and the Life.” He also atones for our sins, and reconciles Himself to man, for putting sin in front of us to begin with. Much like Him saying, "I am sharing
in your humanity, and death so I might save all from eternal damnation." And Jesus dies at OUR sentencing and hands, sinless. The curse is then broken!

Death, then becomes a door instead of a destination! And in heeding His teachings, we avoid the “Second Death” (death of the soul).

And all this..... without disrupting Free Will. AMAZING!

In even simpler terms? God is not asking us to do something He wouldn’t do Himself. And out of pure love for ALL of us! Amen

Hey, Ronedee, haven't seen you around in a while, good to see you participating. I'm a little surprised that after having been with us so long, you would just post a preachy bit of fluff and fail to participate further in a thread you started. How about you elaborate?

Howzer! Nice to see a friendly face! I hope all is well w/ you?

Been really busy. Trying to retire...but it aint workin. Still got teens moping around the house!

I've been spreading out a little to more friendlier conversation. It's hard to formulate responses when being mocked
and belittled. It doesn't get me as steamed as it used to. But deflating enough to move to other pastures.

I felt the inspiration to post this thread here. I knew it wouldn't be taken very seriously, but there are eye's and no
face that see these. maybe someone will get a message from it.

I noticed the "free will" theme moving here! My thoughts are, that God knowing the end, doesn't mean we still don't
have free will.

What's your take?

[Mister Agenda]

I don't think every detail of the future is predetermined and we have 'contingent free will', everything in my life didn't lead up to me choosing the socks I did this morning, but my choices are limited by the available options and colored by my experiences. That's just my opinion, however my subjective experience is that my choices are not all inevitable, so absolute determinism doesn't affect me practically, even if it's true.

[The Grand Nudger]

I just drop the free part, and don't concern myself with determinism. I think it's amusing that, supposing determinism is false, it's still unclear that or how there would be much..if any...freedom in a human will.

[GrandizerII]

@Grandizer

It's not knowledge because all possible choices are made in all possible worlds, with god arbitrarily selecting one of those multiple worlds for "actualization".  It didn't know which one you would choose beyond knowing that you would choose all options.  It merely selected one of all of the options you "chose".  The shots were fired, the holes were in the barn, and it drew a circle around them.  Again, though, irrelevant, as knowing that you would choose everything in a many worlds interpretation still includes the fatalist requirement that you would choose everything in many worlds interpretation.  You couldn't -not- choose everything, and your "choice", known from a past state, could have no other outcome.  The specific world privileged, itself and additionally, being outside of your influence or control.  You "chose" all the worlds, and you didn't choose the actualized one.

I disagree that it's not knowledge. If God knows what world it actualizes, it knows what choice ends up being actually made. It's not a guess, it's absolute knowledge. If you were to ask God what choice you would actually make in this world at some specific time, it would 100% be able to give you the correct answer (assuming God is willing to tell you the truth and all that).

And again, I disagree that the argument I'm making requires that the person choose everything. What it assumes is that the person has the potential to choose one of many options, but only one choice is made actual (in the case of only one world being actual).

I don't choose all the worlds, and I didn't choose the actual world either. But if the possibility of me making choices different from the one I end up making is "real", then that's where the so-called "free will" comes into being.

The definition I give for "free will" is one that virtually matches how philosophical libertarians tend to see it. So I don't agree that what I provided was a redefinition. I will grant you that the definition itself does not necessarily indicate true freedom of will, but we're assuming such a free will is somehow possible. Otherwise, there would be no point bothering to argue for its incompatibility with foreknowledge. Let's just say that such a notion of free will doesn't make sense then.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have foreknowledge just like that, myself.

You see...no matter what my kids might choose in all of the possible or multiple worlds they're choosing...I actualize what goes on their dinner plate. Wouldn't you know it, they choose what I put on the plate every time.

I think you misread, or perhaps I was unclear. I don't require that a person be able to choose everything, I require that a person be able to choose...at all. That seems like a basic requirement for free will. Is that possibility real? Can you choose some other thing, some thing that a god, or a dad -didn't- select for actualization?

Philosophical libertarians define free will in opposition to determinism, where outcomes are determined by a cause exterior to the will. The actualization of a world, or my putting some specific thing on a dinner plate are both..explicitly, exterior to the will. Foreknowledge, either like that (or..you know...actual foreknowledge) is an even stronger claim than determinism, though. If you, I, bob, a dog, or a god knows that something will happen, it can't fail to happen. If none of us know it, but it can be known, it can't fail to happen. That's fatalism.

A very good guess might require some form of causal determinism, but precognition necessarily requires fatalism.

Maybe free will does make sense, it just doesn't make sense if there are actual precognitives, or if it's possible for there to be precognitives. The things they must know to be properly called as such are things that you cannot fail to do. You do not have that real choice, or the possibility of choice - that we both require, regardless of whether or not you made a selection.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

My own take on the matter is that free will does not exist, but it pleases me to behave as if it does.

Boru